Heart Rate Variability and Pulse Rate Variability: Do Anatomical Location and Sampling Rate Matter?

Abstract

Wearable technology and neuroimaging equipment using photoplethysmography (PPG) have become increasingly popularized in recent years. Several investigations deriving pulse rate variability (PRV) from PPG have demonstrated that a slight bias exists compared to concurrent heart rate variability (HRV) estimates. PPG devices commonly sample at ~20–100 Hz, where the minimum sampling frequency to derive valid PRV metrics is unknown. Further, due to different autonomic innervation, it is unknown if PRV metrics are harmonious between the cerebral and peripheral vasculature. Cardiac activity via electrocardiography (ECG) and PPG were obtained concurrently in 54 participants (29 females) in an upright orthostatic position. PPG data were collected at three anatomical locations: left third phalanx, middle cerebral artery, and posterior cerebral artery using a Finapres NOVA device and transcranial Doppler ultrasound. Data were sampled for five minutes at 1000 Hz and downsampled to frequencies ranging from 20 to 500 Hz. HRV (via ECG) and PRV (via PPG) were quantified and compared at 1000 Hz using Bland–Altman plots and coefficient of variation (CoV). A sampling frequency of ~100–200 Hz was required to produce PRV metrics with a bias of less than 2%, while a sampling rate of ~40–50 Hz elicited a bias smaller than 20%. At 1000 Hz, time- and frequency-domain PRV measures were slightly elevated compared to those derived from HRV (mean bias: ~1–8%). In conjunction with previous reports, PRV and HRV were not surrogate biomarkers due to the different nature of the collected waveforms. Nevertheless, PRV estimates displayed greater validity at a lower sampling rate compared to HRV estimates.